The Pilgrims' March/Mahatmaji's Views on Round-Table Conference
MAHATMAJI'S VIEWS ON ROUND-TABLE CONFERENCE
DOUBTS SUCCESS OF THE CONFERENCE
“I have set forth my views in the forth-coming issue of the “Young India” but I may briefly state that the idea of the conference between persons belonging to different parties for the purpose of exchanging views or joint action is always welcome to me as it tends, if it does nothing else, to remove cobwebs and to promote mutual confidence. But I doubt the success of the conference that might be called by the Government unless the Government changes its attitude about the fundamental grievances which have brought about the crisis and unless the Government is prepared to yield to the express wish of the people. In my opinion repression is doing a world of good. It is opening the eyes of everybody and enabling everybody to see the Government in its true light. No conference convened by the Government can be successful unless it has satisfied itself that a large number of earnest men and women are ready to suffer every form of hardship without retaliation for the purpose of gaining a just end.
GANDHI ON THE SITUATION.
Referring to Lord Ronaldshay’s speech at the Bengal Legislative Council on Monday last, Mr. Gandhi made the following statement:—
I have read Lord Ronaldshay’s speech in the Bengal Legislative Council. Whilst I appreciate the note of conciliation about it I cannot help saying that it is most misleading. I do not want to criticise those Parts of the speech which lend themselves to criticism. I simply want to say, that the present situation is entirely his own and the Viceroy’s doing. In spite of my strong desire to avoid suspecting the Government of India and the local Governments of a wish to precipitate a conflict with the people, up to now all that I have heard and read leads me to the conclusion that my suspicion is justified. Whilst I do not wish to deny the existence of some sort of pressure, even intimidation, on the part of individuals, I do wish emphatically to deny that in connection with the phenomenal “hartal” on the 17th November in Calcutta there was any intimidation initiated by or on behalf of the local Congress or the Khilfat Committee. On the contrary I am certain that the influence exerted by both these bodies was in the direction of avoiding all intimidation. Moral pressure there certainly was and will always be in all big movements but it must be clear to the simplest understanding that a complete “hartal,” such as Calcutta witnessed on the 17th November, would be an impossibility by mere intimidation. But, assume that there was intimidation, was there any reason for disbanding Volunteer Corps, Prohibiting public meetings, and enforcing laws which are under promise of repeal. Why has no attempt been made to prove a single case of intimidation? It grieves me to have to say that the Governor of Bengal has brought in the discovery of swords or sword sticks in one place in Calcutta to discredit large public organisations. Who intimidated the people into observing a complete “hartal” in Allahabad, after all the leaders were arrested, and in spite of the reported undue official pressure that was exercised upon shopkeepers and gharriwalas at that place?
Again His Lordship says:—“If we are to assume that this development means there is a genuine desire to bring about improvement, there must be a favourable atmosphere, in other words, it will be generally agreed that a truce must be an essential preliminary to any possible Conference. If responsible leaders of non co-operation now come forward with definite assurance that this is the correct interpretation, I should then say we were in sight of such a change of circumstances as would justify the Government in reconsidering the position, but words must be backed by deeds. If I were satisfied only that there was a general desire for the Conference and that responsible non-co-operation leaders were prepared to take action, then I should be prepared to recommend my Government to take steps in consonance with the altered situation.”
This is highly misleading. If wherever the words non-co-operation leaders occur, the word Government was put in, and if the whole of the statement came from a non-co-operator it would represent the correct situation. Non-co-operators have really to do nothing, for they have precipitated nothing. They are over-cautious. The disturbance in Bombay was allowed to override their keen desire to take up aggressive Civil Disobedience, but in the present circumstances the phrase civil disobedience is really a misnomer. What the non-co-operators are doing to-day I claim every co-operator would do to-morrow under similar circumstances, when the Government of India or the local Governments attempt to make our political existence or agitation, no matter how peaceful, an utter impossibility. May we not resist such attempt by every lawful means at our disposal. I cannot imagine anything more lawful or more natural than we should continue our volunteer organisation purging them of every tendency to become violent and continue also to hold public meetings taking the consequences of such a step. Is it not proof of the law abiding instinct of hundreds of young men and old men that they have meekly, without offering any defence and without complaining, accepted imprisonment for having dared to exercise their elementary rights in the face of Government persecution, and so it is the Government which is to prove its genuine desire for a Conference and an ultimate settlement. It is the Government which has to arrest the fatal course along which repression is taking it. It is the Government that is to prove to non-co-operators its bona fides before it can expect them to take part in any Conference. When they do that, it will find that there is an absolutely peaceful atmosphere. Non-co-operation when the Government is not resisting anything except violence is a most harmless thing. There is really nothing for us to suspend. We cannot be expected until there is actual settlement or guarantee of settlement to ask school boys to return to Government schools, or lawyers to resume practice, or public men become candidates for the Councils, or title holders to ask for the return of their titles. In the nature of things it is therefore clear that the non-co-operators have to do nothing.
Speaking personally I can certainly say that if there is a genuine desire for a Conference I would be the last person to advise precipitating aggressive civil disobedience, which certainly it is my intention to do, immediately I am entirely satisfied that the people have understood the secret of non-violence, and Let me say the last ten days' events have shown that the people seem clearly to understand its inestimable value. If, then, the Government recognises that the non-co-operators mean business they intend to suffer limitlessly for the attainment of their goal let the Government unconditionally retrace its steps, cancel the notification about the disbandment of volunteer organisations, and prohibition of public meetings and release all those men in the different provinces who have been arrested, and sentenced for so-called civil disobedience or for any other purpose given under the definition of non-co-operation, but excluding acts of violence, actual or intended. Let the Government come down with a heavy hand on every act of violence or incitement to it, but we must claim the right for all time of expressing our opinions freely and educating public opinion by every legitimate and non-violent means. It is therefore the Government who have really to undo the grave wrong they have perpetrated and they can have the Conference they wish under a favourable atmosphere. Let me also say that so far as I am concerned I want no Conference to consider the ways and means of dealing with non-co-operation. The only Conference that can at all avail at this stage is a Conference called to deal with the causes of the present discontent namely, the Khilafat and the Punjab wrongs and Swaraj. Any Conference again which can usefully sit at the present stage must be a Conference that is really representative and not a Conference to which only those whom the Government desire are invited.
MAHATMAJI ANSWERS VICEROY
Writing in "Young India" Mahatma Gandhi says that, if Lord Reading was trying legitimately to suppress popular lawlessness he must study and regulate the development of his campaign which he would not even allow to be called repression.
His subordinates being interested parties had gone out of hand. He must forthwith resign or at least publicly disown and condemn illegalities and assaults and not attempt to excuse them on the flimsy plea of trying times. A Round-table conference was bound to prove abortive till Lord Reading was disabused of the idea that Non-co-operation was confined to a few misguided zealots.
If he wanted co-operation and contentment he must placate Non-co-operation.